clw_uk wrote:"Therefore, with the breakup of the body, the wise man does not fare on to body. Not faring onto body, he is freed from birth, aging, and death; freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and dispair, freed from suffering, I say"

The key here is "freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and dispair, freed from suffering, I say"

You cut out the first part of the quote It says " freed from birth, aging, and death; freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and dispair, freed from suffering, I say"

He's freed from birth - he does not take another body again because he has destroyed ignorance. If he took on another body that would indicate he had not destroyed ignorance, so he'd still be subject to all the other types of suffering.

these are mental dukkha that arise through ignorance. It states that one is only free from them when one does not fare on to another body.

No, it means that if he'd take on another body, he would not really have eliminated ignorance, thus all the other kind of suffering would follow.

If you take it as literal body/death then you assert that one cannot be free from dukkha and enlightened in this moment as this passage states that with the breakup of the body one is freed from suffering, physical and mental.

If one takes on another body, that means one has not eliminated ignorance, therefore one will experience all types of suffering.
The body you inhabit is the result of prior ignorance. When you destroy that ignorance, you still have a body, as explained in the quotes from Thanissaro Bhikkhu previously.

If you take this with birth etc meaning "I" moments then it keeps in line with freedom in this very moment. By not faring onto another false "birth" of a sense of self or "I" then one does not experience dukkha ever again.

Metta
Craig

One more time: You have this lifetime (Which we shall call 1). You can look at D.O. as occuring moment to moment in this lifetime, and that's ok, but not ONLY in this lifetime. You experienced birth in this lifetime, due to prior craving. So the fact that you're here at all is a result of a previous lifetime. (We'll call that 2). In 2, you also experienced birth, which had to be the result of previous craving (3) and so on. That's one way of explaining the three minimum. We can also go the other way. If you don't become an arahant during thie lifetime, after death, your current ignorance will land you a new body again.

If one awakens during this lifetime, you put an end to future births. But you still have this body that you were born into (due to that previous lifetime). There is still kamma that has to play out, but there's no mental suffering involved. After the physical death of the body, there's no further rebirth because there is no desire to be reborn again. This sutta does not contradict this at all.

There is still the problem of when there is cesstation fo D.O. it states that Name and Form comes to cesstation. Would this mean that then one would infact die after enlightenment. Also it states that contact leads to feeling and then onto cravin.... birth. Contact happens all the time so can only be moment to moment and also that consciousness depends on name and form and name and form on consciousness so how can anything go past physical death? (I realise i have said this before but feel it is important) and also the suttas themselves dont really state that D.O. covers anything more than this life/moment.

P.S. thank you for your posts they are quite challenging which is good

I did read the extract and it does seem reasonable however i do not see any evidence of it acctualy being in the suttas.

From the arising of this comes the arising of that.

To me that just says that in the next moment if there is, for example, contact there will be craving. Doesnt mean it has to be three lives.

In reguard to your earlier post:

[quote=]You cut out the first part of the quote It says " freed from birth, aging, and death; freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and dispair, freed from suffering, I say"[/quote]

Birth just means the birth of the sense of "I" arising from contact, feeling and craving.

MN - 44:

Saying, "Yes, lady," Visakha the lay follower delighted & rejoiced in what Dhammadinna the nun had said. Then he asked her a further question: "'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

"'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

The "birth" is of the sense of I through contact.

If you are saying that the body refers to literal physical body/birth there is a sutta that states that the physical body originates from the 4 elements.

"The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the manifestation of the material form aggregate"

This debate does seem to be getting circular however, anyone else got something to add?

clw_uk wrote:Is there a sutta in the pali canon excluding the abhidhamma that states that cause and effect can have a large time delay?

Thousands of suttas. Just one example:
"

Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening
during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma),
ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma),
ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma)
...." (A.VI, 63).

Dhammanando wrote:But what is the relationship between the two kinds of right view? According to Buddhadāsa and his circle there's none whatsoever; they're two unrelated doctrines that the Buddha taught to different types of persons – one a doctrine conducive to morality and the other a doctrine of liberation. And so if it's liberation one is after, then according to this interpretation, mundane right view will be of no interest at all; indeed it will be counterproductive, for holding it ineluctably makes one an eternalist. Have I got it right?

Venerable Dhammanando

Given you have asked the question, I must reply of course you have not got it right. Your post to me is full of presumption.

If you can find a reference or source to support your claims against Buddhadasa and 'his circle' then you may possibly have a point.

It is best to discuss realities rather than imaginings.

With metta,

Element

P.S. The Lord Buddha has advised in the sutta mundane right view leads to merit, becoming & asava. In other words, it alone cannot lead to liberation. Similarly, being concerned with making merit for future lives rather than extinguishing self-view here & now will not lead to liberation. Regarding meritorious action being the foundation for the path, that is a given.

Dhammanando wrote:But what is the relationship between the two kinds of right view? According to Buddhadāsa and his circle there's none whatsoever; they're two unrelated doctrines that the Buddha taught to different types of persons – one a doctrine conducive to morality and the other a doctrine of liberation. And so if it's liberation one is after, then according to this interpretation, mundane right view will be of no interest at all; indeed it will be counterproductive, for holding it ineluctably makes one an eternalist. Have I got it right?

Venerable Dhammanando

Given you have asked the question, I must reply of course you have not got it right. Your post to me is full of presumption.

If you can find a reference or source to support your claims against Buddhadasa and 'his circle' then you may possibly have a point.

It is best to discuss realities rather than imaginings.

With metta,

Element

P.S. The Lord Buddha has advised in the sutta mundane right view leads to merit, becoming & asava. In other words, it alone cannot lead to liberation. Similarly, being concerned with making merit for future lives rather than extinguishing self-view here & now will not lead to liberation. Regarding meritorious action being the foundation for the path, that is a given.

Element,

The Bhante has every right, as does anyone who has read your & Stuka's posts over time to describe your views as he has. Whether here or at another online group, you two have only sneered at the mundane right view of literal rebirth (and those who value that view) and promoted exclusively your Buddhadasa-ism of D.O. (as momentary arising) as you see it, as the only proper path of practice.

I note you have avoided writing the correct "reality" above to offset the "imagined" view given. No one knows your mind better than you, so why not clearly & concisely write your view, so no one else will get it wrong.

The buddha does talk about descent in to the womb an such like in the Mahanidana sutta when talking about the DO. But at the same time, there are suttas which say that the elements of the DO can be seen in the here and now (okkantasamyutta) by stream entrants. Now all stream entrants are not endowed with any special capabilities enabling them to see past lives. Therefore the conclusion is that some elements which correspond to past life elements can be seen happening now, in this life. For example sankhara (mental fabrications- intentions) giving rise to consciousness. In the past life model this is supposed to mean karmic intentions of a past life giving rise to the first spark of consciousness in the womb. However the closest approximation we can come to this is to see intentions in this life giving rise to consciousness at any of the sense bases. This can be done by vipassana aimed at seeing the process of perception.

rowyourboat wrote:The buddha does talk about descent in to the womb an such like in the Mahanidana sutta when talking about the DO.

My opinion is the Mahanidana sutta is one sutta distinct from scores of others on the subject. Plus it is in the Digha Nikaya, which appears to be precursor to the Mahayana Suttas and thus doubtful if spoken by the Buddha. If so, it was spoken to Ananda, who was unenlightened and not ready for stream entry.

Also, discerning reality is something to be considered. For example, when we look at our body with our eyes, both actually or in a mirror, we are not actually experiencing the body thus there is no existence of the body. When we look at our body, we are merely experiencing a sight via the eye and eye consciousness.

However, in meditation, when consciousness descends into the body itself, then the mind directly experiences the body via the body sense organ and body consciousness. For example, in the first satipatthana, Buddha uses the phrase "experiencing all bodies" or "experiencing the whole body". The mind is the same in cittanupassana. Unless consciousness descends or enters within the body & mind itself, there is no direct experience or existence of the body-mind.

For most human beings, the body is something seen via the eye and the mind something heard via the ear. As such, there is no arising of nama-rupa.

Not to be anal, but it seems to me that using "you are" in this way in a presumably buddhist discussion seems to be rather unskilfull.
Isn't "you're holding a physicalist view" more in tune with reality (anatta/anicca and such)?

I've often seen this and wonder about it everytime so I thouht i'd put it to words.